Would anybody like to explain this "Tulpa" thing?

[Wishful Thinking 102]

Just saying this, but it takes over one hundred hours to make a tulpa (or, in my case, a month of extreme obsession in which said obsession becomes the very thing my mind revolves around).

 

You're basically planning out a whole 'nother being and slowly enforcing that image, personality, smell, feel and general presence into your subconscious. It eventually becomes a sentient being as a result of being in your subconscious, where you are unaware of what can happen.

 

 

I am not surprised I didn't get my cutie mark in explaining.

 

Hope I helped somewhat.

[Chigens and Kay 3,831]

Just saying this, but it takes over one hundred hours to make a tulpa (or, in my case, a month of extreme obsession in which said obsession becomes the very thing my mind revolves around).

 

You're basically planning out a whole 'nother being and slowly enforcing that image, personality, smell, feel and general presence into your subconscious. It eventually becomes a sentient being as a result of being in your subconscious, where you are unaware of what can happen.

 

 

I am not surprised I didn't get my cutie mark in explaining.

 

Hope I helped somewhat.

 

I've been working on my Tulpa for way over a hundred hours and I stopped counting.

 

That's pretty much it right there.

[Glaceon 793]

I started making my tulpa yesterday. Wish me luck everypony.

Special thanks to @@Chigens and Kay, for giving me some pro tips.

[HomuraBL 851]

@,

 

You too?

 

I started mine yesterday as well and I'm currently on my 7th personality for my Tulpa. Maybe we can track each others progress.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Bandana RaccoonBLee

[UndisputedDash 1]

Hey all, I'm new here.

Sorry for bumping this old thread but I found it from Google and thought it might be better replying here than make a new thread.

How does a Tulpa stimulate the 5 senses? More specifically, "touch"? I just don't get how you could feel something that isn't there.

Also, there's a lot of things on the internet about Tulpa's. Is it true that they can turn against you?

Finally, are Tulpas basically a part of Buddhism that non Buddhists practice?

[Dowlphin 459]

How does a Tulpa stimulate the 5 senses? More specifically, "touch"? I just don't get how you could feel something that isn't there.

You can't tell whether something you touch is really there or a perfect hallucination. I know this for a fact, for I have re-experienced some memories under psychdelics, and all that helped me identify the experiences as episodes from my memory was their repetitiveness/familiarity and the knowledge of having taken psychedelics. It can become so real that you think you're actually jumping back and forth in time.

Makebelieve requires practice, but can become quasi-perfect. All that stands in the way are the rational mind processes (with "rationality" being a belief system).

 

What makes the creation of a thought form difficult is the (in ordinary life quite useful) belief that WE are MORE than just thought forms. I suspect that this barrier would have to fall for the creation of a true tulpa. It might not even be possible in an environment where people don't believe it's possible. ... (Well, duh! Haha.)

Edited April 2, 2014 by Dowlphin

[Windseeker 546]

Tulpamancy is several different flavors of weird. I am not saying its a bad thing and I respect the people who practice it. But I am not convince that self-imposed schizophrenia doesn't have some sort of drawback.

 

Practicing these types of dissociation will destroy the fabrication of one's memories.

[Dowlphin 459]

 

 

Practicing these types of dissociation will destroy the fabrication of one's memories.

Not necessarily, since the creation of an imagined entity is quite a specific form of schizophrenia, and a fully consciously intended one.

[Milky Jade 138]

Basically, it doesn't work. It started out as a troll and now the fandom is teeming with people that believe they could actually bifurcate their subconscious or anything esoterical like that.

 

Strangely enough, everyone has their dime to give, and knows how it ought to work in theory. It has already been accepted that tulpas are known to work, which they don't. The closest you'll ever come is imagining your tulpa 24/7.

 

It will not ever act on its own accord.

[Dowlphin 459]

Basically, it doesn't work. It started out as a troll and now the fandom is teeming with people that believe they could actually bifurcate their subconscious or anything esoterical like that.

 

Strangely enough, everyone has their dime to give, and knows how it ought to work in theory. It has already been accepted that tulpas are known to work, which they don't. The closest you'll ever come is imagining your tulpa 24/7.

 

It will not ever act on its own accord.

Started out as a troll? ... Where have I heard that one before? ... Could it have been on 4chan and related to the brony phenomenon?

 

Also, how could you know they don't "work"? This seems a definition problem. What people are talking about here, I'm quite sure, is not an individual lifeform in someone's mind, but an imaginary thought process moved into the subconscious. It's a bit like when you have done something long enough, like riding a bike, the processes become like second nature - you don't think about doing anymore, but just do. It is (as it is intended) more than an imaginary friend, but not as much as a real tulpa.

 

An entity confined to someone's own mind, but with a truly individual mind of itself, would be a case of possession, while an entity like that that is (sometimes) visible to other people is a phantom/ghost. An entity with a truly individual mind and full material corpus is us, and we are still mere thought forms, because everything is.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Dowlphin

[Milky Jade 138]

Started out as a troll? ... Where have I heard that one before? ... Could it have been on 4chan and related to the brony phenomenon?

 

Also, how could you know they don't "work"? This seems a definition problem. What people are talking about here, I'm quite sure, is not an individual lifeform in someone's mind, but an imaginary thought process moved into the subconscious. It's a bit like when you have done something long enough, like riding a bike, the processes become like second nature - you don't think about doing anymore, but just do. It is (as it is intended) more than an imaginary friend, but not as much as a real tulpa.

 

An entity confined to someone's own mind, but with a truly individual mind of itself, would be a case of possession, while an entity like that that is (sometimes) visible to other people is a phantom/ghost. An entity with a truly individual mind and full material corpus is us, and we are still mere thought forms, because everything is.

 

Yeah, and that's called muscle memory.

 

There is a grand misconception about the 'subconscious'. It is that it has become an easily accepted term, surely - what is implicit in its name is the idea that there are multiple layers of consciousness, transpiring to the outermost (the focal consciousness) occasionally, and it works in that fashion.

 

Personally, I think the only viable alternative to 'consciousness' is 'unconsciousness'. I might be accused of a false dichotomy here, but hear me out. People think the subconscious is comprised of all which is not in their current awareness (memories, for instance). They cannot give you clear directions on whether it is meant as a definable faculty of the brain, or just a collective term for things not even neurologists understand completely as of yet - the fact remains that 'consciousness' is the faculty which perceives reality. It is an inescapable axiom.

 

Oftentimes I hear that the subconscious is essentially a storage for information which exceeds the capacity of that of your consciousness. I'm not trying to be sarky here - but you're describing what is known to be your memory.

 

People would immediately shut up with that waffle talk if they read Tor Nørretranders' "The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down To Size". It is explicitly stated that we are being bombarded with information, but our brain is capable of only processing just about.. 20 bits per second. Your consciousness works two-fold: By Integration and Differentiation.

 

The only way in which to make sense of the information deluge of percepts is Exformation: The purposeful discarding of information to strategically attain information.

 

In works like so. If I blotted out every rectangular shape from your eyes, you'd be able to deduce where all the houses and boxes are still - you lose information, but at the same time, you don't lose it. It is the same with shadows. It is for this reason that there is a hierarchy of data and percepts.

 

Our eyes don't have an FPS like monitors. They receive a constant stream of information, most of which is discarded off-hand. The remaining data is being integrated into percepts, which in turn are being integrated into concepts by your faculty of consciousness.

 

I think I made myself expressly clear on this. There is no room for junk information to go to your .. "other conscious"-nesses.

 

 

 

"(..) and we are still mere thought forms, because everything is."

 

We are thought forms? Please elucidate, if you will..?

[Nine 707]

The subconscious has always been the plaything of people living out sci-fi fantasies in the real world. It's right there next to that thing about how we only use 10% of our brains. Sorta like how I only use 10% of my car, because I'm only touching the seat, the wheel, and a pedal.

Anyway, I assume it's because people can take refuge from criticism in their subjective experience. After all, only *they* can say what they really feel or see at any given moment, and you can't. I'd argue this debased phenomenon applies equally to a whole *other* class of beliefs, but I'd get my tongue cut out for breathing a word of it.

So you'll just have to *imagine*.

[Dowlphin 459]

@Milky Jade

I'm using the terms based on not just study, but also incorporating my personal experiences with consciousness. Thus, when I say subconscious, I mean the set of information that is available to our physical senses (and thus individualistic), but put aside for various reasons. When I say unconscious, I mean the whole rest of consciousness that is not even limited to our individual experience of the world and life.

At the root, there is only one consciousness. Call it "the observer". We can only function as individuals and thus maintain our egoic mind (fear-based survival tool for the material world) if we block out this very disturbing reality. But it is the realm of which our individual consciousness is a part. Thus, you could say that the unified consciousness (some call it God) is imagining the universe and all its separations and individual viewpoints into existence.

And if you have witnessed that level of reality (as I kinda have), it makes it easier to believe that, given the right circumstances, creating corporeal thought forms is naturally possible; that there is a sea of infinite possibilities and our minds are mere filter programs, cutting off most of that mindblowing totality and leaving only a tiny bit which then creates the individual conscious experience.

This is what people mean when they talk about the realization that "you don't exist". Because what you perceive as an individual is just God looking at itself through a drinking straw. You as you perceive yourself right now are the drinking straw. But you are also God (as am I), and our egoic minds couldn't keep the illusion up if we were constantly confronted with that higher truth. It can scare you shitless. As am I. ... Individuality is like a drop of water. A drop is a rationally defined unit of limitation. But it is also water, and when the drop falls into the ocean, the drop ceases to exist, but none of the water is lost. It is mixed with the rest of its kind. It's all water.

 

In case you watched The Matrix, imagine Neo when he came to on the Nebuchadnezar and realized that all his life was a mere simulation. That experience was to disturbing to his mind that he threw up from the very thought. His mind was resisting the truth so much that it acted like his body had been poisoned. ... Now imagine that, but not waking up to the realization that you are a human in a wholly different life and were asleep in a world that never really existed, but waking up to the realization that you yourself never really existed. ... That's part of what I went through. THAT was definitely some HOLY SHIT!

BTW this is also why seeing the future is not an easy feat. The doubtless intrinsic knowledge of the future implies the non-existence of time, and that's freaky as hell for our linear minds. Let's just say that one time I really experienced future events, but my mind blocked them out until they were no longer in the future. I regained a flawless memory of my past experience of the future after the events, and in no way could that have been a déjà vu. ... My egoic mind just had to block it out due to the mindblowing implications it would have conveyed. I also remember having made a conscious and rational decision to forget a lot of the stuff I saw so that I could continue to live 'normally'. ... Naturally I don't remember what it was that I so enthusiastically decided to forget, haha. But the memory of the words I spoke is very clear ... as if to leave me a reminder to not continue to long for an expanded consciousness like that in hopes that it might help me with more mundane problems.

 

Maybe now you can also imagine what Pinkie Pie's mind must be like.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Dowlphin

[Milky Jade 138]

@Milky Jade

Maybe now you can also imagine what Pinkie Pie's mind must be like.

I can certainly imagine what it must be to constantly contradict yourself

 

 

"imagining the universe into existence"

 

Well I don't know

 

If you are saying that existence is subject unto our minds, what are our minds subject unto?

 

Realize that reality is the standard to that which exists. What do you hope to observe?

You want to observe existence. For you to observe existence, it must exist, and you must be part of it.

It is crucial for you to recognize that existence exists independent of you or me.

 

Anyway, I think that whole thread of nonsense is resting on this statement:

"At the root, there is only one consciousness."

 

But what if I kicked it away? What will be left of your card house?

 

Now it is incumbent upon you to back this statement up with evidence if you really, really, really want to extrapolate from there. Otherwise you end up with a cock-and-bull story with no basis in reality...

you know.. just saying..

[Dowlphin 459]

Apparently I have given you way too much to digest there. 

Know that I don't enjoy duels of conviction. You have already made up your mind and now your mind is trying to control me to play its little game, with the exit clause that if I cannot be controlled, you win by default. Well, go ahead. You don't need my insights.

I'm helping people open their minds, not trying to win a debate.

[Milky Jade 138]

@@Nine,

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmHDiJHxEic#t=0m59s

 

I sort of expected to get buffetted with upset and petulant posts just by saying I think people who are tulpaforcing are merely labouring under the delusion that it works. I'm willing to give my tongue for that, because I'm merely stating my opinion and I'm fully aware that nothing I dare say could ever inflect their genuine certainty, and so I have nothing to lose.

 

They had no expectations that could be disappointed - nor satisfied, but satisfaction is actually the default they (choose to) slip into. I'm willing to bet all my money that everyone claiming to successfully having created a tulpa is completely different from the next, for that reason.

Apparently I have given you way too much to digest there. 

Know that I don't enjoy duels of conviction. You have already made up your mind and now your mind is trying to control me to play its little game, with the exit clause that if I cannot be controlled, you win by default. Well, go ahead. You don't need my insights.

I'm helping people open their minds, not trying to win a debate.

 

I only asked you your reasons for thinking.. that way.

 

It's like you're trying to combine collectivism, solipsism and nihilism all into one. It's just bound to fail, and I personally don't see how it will help people open their minds. That is why I'm asking you.

 

I resent the assertion that merely because I'm not liable to buying into a load of waffle I am close-minded and unable to listen to a compelling case.

[Adachi 772]

Tulpas are cool, although I've never actually experienced one before. All I have to say is to be careful, because even if one wants a pony tulpa, they might not always turn out that way, they do deviate, no matter how much willpower you have.

[Dowlphin 459]

It's like you're trying to combine collectivism, solipsism and nihilism all into one. It's just bound to fail, and I personally don't see how it will help people open their minds. That is why I'm asking you.

 

I resent the assertion that merely because I'm not liable to buying into a load of waffle I am close-minded and unable to listen to a compelling case.

First you do a labeling extravaganza, thereby missing all the good stuff that's falling between the cracks among the rigid concepts and 'isms'. Then you again imply a competition/challenge/agenda with "bound to fail". I'm not trying to construct anything. I'm merely sharing. And the last sentence is an almost comedic contradiction. (I highlighted some parts in case you still don't see it, which is likely. Naturally a closed mind wouldn't recognize itself as such.) You don't have an inquirer's mind here. You have a challenger's mind. Regardless of what you tell yourself - this is not motivated by innocent curiosity, but by a desire to convince others of the idea that your way of thinking is superior/right.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Dowlphin

[Adachi 772]

I have some questions about Tulpas

 

1) Should I create a male or female Tulpa? I connect a heck of a lot more with females, although a female Tulpa might feel disgusted in my body (I'm overweight and I don't shave often and I'm not the cleanest person around). Also, if I ever get married and do what husbands and wives do, my Tulpa might hate me for it, while if I have a male Tulpa he might cheer me on xD

2) Should I try to force a base personality on my Tulpa to steer it towards my desired result? Or just let it be created and develop on it's own?

3) Is it true that a Tulpa can auto pilot the host? I think that would be cool, although a bit scary at times. I'm reminded of that anime or manga where a timid girl developed a dark side which protected her from bullying, although also got her in trouble. I might make my Tulpa a combination of AJ/RD/Lyra so I can have a cute friend who is also reliable and can help me protect myself if I ever get attacked.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Princess of the Sun

[Milky Jade 138]

First you do a labeling extravaganza, thereby missing all the good stuff that's falling between the cracks among the rigid concepts and 'isms'. Then you again imply a competition/challenge/agenda with "bound to fail". I'm not trying to construct anything. I'm merely sharing. And the last sentence is an almost comedic contradiction. (I highlighted some parts in case you still don't see it, which is likely. Naturally a closed mind wouldn't recognize itself as such.) You don't have an inquirer's mind here. You have a challenger's mind. Regardless of what you tell yourself - this is not motivated by innocent curiosity, but by a desire to convince others of the idea that your way of thinking is superior/right.

 

Yeah, I am absolutely convinced that not listening to mad ramblings and internally inconsistent asspulls which amount to exactly nothing is not tantamount to being close-minded. Listen to yourself talk.

 

Do you want to know what I think? I think that accusing people of being close-minded when they don't approve of your case is a concession of bumbling on your part. If you know an idea to be true, there should be no reason why you can't make your case palatable.

 

Ideas ought to be shared, if you are invested in furthering and proliferating them. That is why I try to make myself as clear as I can.

If they still don't understand or simply disagree - fine, there's more intelligent potential beneficiaries.

 

Thus far I've not heard a compelling counter-case, and so I've actually stopped hoping for it.

 

Now what about ideas and truth? What good is your idea if you cannot prove it to me? Scores of ideas are internally self-consistent, but unless you can show me somehow that they have a basis or use in reality, you're frittering your and everyone's time.

[Nine 707]

@@Milky Jade,

I don't pause before giving my opinion of tulpas. I *probably* wouldn't stop for long before giving a brief comment about religion.

But I was actually thinking of something else again, so holy and sacred these days I dare not even speak its name.

Suffice to say people routinely overinvest themselves in bad ideas, because of this glitchy way of thinking about loss - that a loss isn't a loss until you take it, and that a person who's wrong isn't wrong unless someone else can conclusively prove it.

 

First you do a labeling extravaganza, thereby missing all the good stuff that's falling between the cracks among the rigid concepts and 'isms'. Then you again imply a competition/challenge/agenda with "bound to fail". I'm not trying to construct anything. I'm merely sharing. And the last sentence is an almost comedic contradiction. (I highlighted some parts in case you still don't see it, which is likely. Naturally a closed mind wouldn't recognize itself as such.) You don't have an inquirer's mind here. You have a challenger's mind. Regardless of what you tell yourself - this is not motivated by innocent curiosity, but by a desire to convince others of the idea that your way of thinking is superior/right.

Such bombastic certainty, oh me oh my.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Nine

[Milky Jade 138]

@@Nine,

 

An.. argument from ignorance? Is it really that sacred these days?

 

I should be able to come up with a host of other informal fallacies on which people (are willing to) base their entire reasoning.

 

Needless to say, they're all sacrosanct, too. Demons to some, angels to others..

[Nine 707]

 

 

An.. argument from ignorance? Is it really that sacred these days?

idk what an argument from ignorance is.

If you mean people overlooking bollocks in exchange for not being called on it themselves (a perverse sort of tolerance) then yeah.

I have a specific example of this in mind but like I said I'm not willing to drag it out here.

[Taviscratch 453]

This Tulpa business has intrigued me and I think I want to give it a go. I'm currently on holiday for four weeks so I have plenty of time to spare. There's just one thing I want to know: I am incredibly cynical and skeptical by nature. Will this hinder my Tulpaforcing?

[Milky Jade 138]

idk what an argument from ignorance is.

If you mean people overlooking bollocks in exchange for not being called on it themselves (a perverse sort of tolerance) then yeah.

I have a specific example of this in mind but like I said I'm not willing to drag it out here.

 

Bottom line, the argument goes "a proposition is true because my adversary fails to produce evidence to the contrary"

Also called 'appeal to ignorance'